The question 'how does mimicry become fixed in populations' is clearly answered by selection. While I could be convinced otherwise and sometimes have, I find it hard to believe you could be so thick as to deny this.

You should have had some basic idea about mimicry to discuss it before calling me names. So let us start a small lecture:

To consider something to be mimicry:

1) there is a resemblance to other species.2) This resemblance give some advantage to species.3) This resemblance aroused due Natural selection.

Because there is no advatage having warning coloration for wasps and ladybirds all of their "mimics" are not protected. Consequently natural selection couldn't caused their resemblance.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

since you seem to be driven by mystical considerations of phenotypes, we can safely dispense with 2 and 3 here. i'm interested in why things look like other things when they are not those things, and i'm calling that mimicry.

otherwise you are playing stupid semantical games where something is impossible by definition. i'm not interested in that type of trolling so don't bother.

some beetles and spiders mimic ants (read: look just damn like them and live in ant nests). how did this happen, according to VMartin. Note "not by the natural selection, you frustrated darwinist materialist from ATBC" is not an answer.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

since you seem to be driven by mystical considerations of phenotypes, we can safely dispense with 2 and 3 here. i'm interested in why things look like other things when they are not those things, and i'm calling that mimicry.

Do not make fool of yourself. Do you consider resemblance of marsupial and placental wolf as mimicry? Which one is a model and which one is a mimic?

Do you consider butterflies living in Asia and those with similar wing color patterns living in Africa for mimicry?

Think before you write something. Point 2 and 3 are as important as point 1 is.

Quote

otherwise you are playing stupid semantical games where something is impossible by definition. i'm not interested in that type of trolling so don't bother

You have to accept definition of mimicry from scientists who devoted to the problem. Your own conception of mimicry is childish.

Quote

some beetles and spiders mimic ants (read: look just damn like them and live in ant nests). how did this happen, according to VMartin.

They didn't look just damn like them. They look just "damn" only in darwinian heads. It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that ants could be mislead by "mimics" from spider species.

Seeing Sphecotypus niger, Salticus contractus or Formicina mutinensis from above remind us on an ant only if no ant is present for comparision. Looking closely to "mimic" even you would be sure it is spider, no ant.

Ants use their antennae, not vision and above view as darwinists.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

since you seem to be driven by mystical considerations of phenotypes, we can safely dispense with 2 and 3 here. i'm interested in why things look like other things when they are not those things, and i'm calling that mimicry.

Do not make fool of yourself. Do you consider resemblance of marsupial and placental wolf as mimicry? Which one is a model and which one is a mimic?

They didn't look just damn like them. They look just "damn" only in darwinian heads. It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that ants could be mislead by "mimics" from spider species.

Seeing Sphecotypus niger, Salticus contractus or Formicina mutinensis from above remind us on an ant only if no ant is present for comparision. Looking closely to "mimic" even you would be sure it is spider, no ant.

Ants use their antennae, not vision and above view as darwinists.

The only relevant point is that they look like ants to other ants.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

It's not just to other ants. An ant expert in my lab has been fooled for over an hour by ant mimic beetles, trying to figure just what subfamily the thing is in only to realize sheepishly the source of the problem.

Quote

It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that ants could be mislead by "mimics" from spider species.

But that is what happens, stupid troll. Most ants attack everything in the nest that is not a member of their colony. The beetle slips through because THEY THINK HE IS AN ANT.

I watched monomorium ants from two colonies fighting it out on the sidewalk for ten minutes this morning. Pretty cool.

VMartin trolleth:

Quote

Do not make fool of yourself. Do you consider resemblance of marsupial and placental wolf as mimicry? Which one is a model and which one is a mimic?

Do you consider butterflies living in Asia and those with similar wing color patterns living in Africa for mimicry?

Think before you write something. Point 2 and 3 are as important as point 1 is.

These things don't have anything to do with your points 2 and 3.

Now, answer. Where the hell do phenotypes come from if they are not heritable?

I swear to god this is alan sokal getting kicks.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Since predator/prey evolution can be viewed as something of a long-term escalation race, it's entirely possible that the wasp striping provided a much stronger survival advantage in the past. But since the predators are also evolving, they may be more discerning now. It may be that they have evolved to react more to the sound or shape than to the color, whereas the past predators may have reacted more to the coloration.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Well, Martin, it would appear that dragonflies hunt mainly by sight, and are a very ancient group. Does your theory, which, by the way, you have so far omitted to discuss, provide a better explanation of these observations and experiments?

Because there is no advatage having warning coloration for wasps and ladybirds all of their "mimics" are not protected. Consequently natural selection couldn't caused their resemblance.

In fact, there are flaws in this reasoning. The fact that many potential predators can identify wasps by other cues than color doesn't mean that the striped color pattern wasn't aposematic in the past (as pointed by Improvius) or for some species (humans?).

Second, the fact that unstriped wasps are still avoided doesn't mean that color doesn't contribute to the identification at all. I can be redundant with shape or odor, which is not the same. Hence, other groups can take advantage of their mimicry with wasps by misleading predators, as suggested by this study.

Hehe. Alan Fox himself seems to be enthusiastic about the results of the "experiment". Darwinists are making these childish experiments more than 150 years to prove their nonsense about their concept of "mimicry". Heikertinger was right when he made the same experiments himself and prove exactly the opposite from them.

Here you have another one, which proves exact the opposite!

Quote

However, dragonflies showed no differences between attacks on prey with wasp-like colours and patterns and those on the same-sized prey that were nonmimetic. Moreover, dragonflies avoided attacking both mock-painted and black-painted wasps entirely. Overall, we found no evidence to support the hypothesis that wasp-like warning signals protect small insect prey from attack by dragonflies, although size seems to be an important cue in dragonfly prey choice.

The most important thing is hidden in the last sentence. The prey are almost always picked up by size. It is same in all Nature. "Warning coloration" plays no nole. It plays role only in darwinian text-books.

Since predator/prey evolution can be viewed as something of a long-term escalation race, it's entirely possible that the wasp striping provided a much stronger survival advantage in the past. But since the predators are also evolving, they may be more discerning now. It may be that they have evolved to react more to the sound or shape than to the color, whereas the past predators may have reacted more to the coloration.

May, may, may... This is the last darwinian resort. Nobody can check it. Because "warning coloration" play no role and give no protection - it could be checked - it is presumed that there was once a time... Of course to hold such fantasies for science you have to be convinced about omnipotence of hypothesis of "natural selection".

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Since predator/prey evolution can be viewed as something of a long-term escalation race, it's entirely possible that the wasp striping provided a much stronger survival advantage in the past. But since the predators are also evolving, they may be more discerning now. It may be that they have evolved to react more to the sound or shape than to the color, whereas the past predators may have reacted more to the coloration.

May, may, may... This is the last darwinian resort. Nobody can check it. Because "warning coloration" play no role and give no protection - it could be checked - it is presumed that there was once a time... Of course to hold such fantasies for science you have to be convinced about omnipotence of hypothesis of "natural selection".

Nobody can check your idea either, as you refuse to say what is is. So sort yourself out first might be an idea?

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

It's not just to other ants. An ant expert in my lab has been fooled for over an hour by ant mimic beetles, trying to figure just what subfamily the thing is in only to realize sheepishly the source of the problem.

Quote

It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that ants could be mislead by "mimics" from spider species.

But that is what happens, stupid troll. Most ants attack everything in the nest that is not a member of their colony. The beetle slips through because THEY THINK HE IS AN ANT.

I watched monomorium ants from two colonies fighting it out on the sidewalk for ten minutes this morning. Pretty cool.

VMartin trolleth:

Quote

Do not make fool of yourself. Do you consider resemblance of marsupial and placental wolf as mimicry? Which one is a model and which one is a mimic?

Do you consider butterflies living in Asia and those with similar wing color patterns living in Africa for mimicry?

Think before you write something. Point 2 and 3 are as important as point 1 is.

These things don't have anything to do with your points 2 and 3.

Now, answer. Where the hell do phenotypes come from if they are not heritable?

I swear to god this is alan sokal getting kicks.

Any problems with your nerves? Alan Sokal? Am I really "stupid troll"? Look what nonsense you have written:

Quote

But that is what happens, stupid troll. Most ants attack everything in the nest that is not a member of their colony. The beetle slips through because THEY THINK HE IS AN ANT.

They even "THINK"? Really? Did't you make some naive antropomorphism to support your ridiculous concept of mimicry and it's protective value?

Your stupidity and ignorance are amazing. There are more than 2.000 guests species which lives in ant's nests. According your darwinian flawed logic all of them should be mimics. So have a look at the beetle Atemeles first. Ants are even feeding them... Or lomechusa strumosa or many others... Do you see any resemblance, any mimicry?

Because you have no basic idea about mimicry and so-called "zoomimese" and because you do not care about facts you do not know that in nests is dark and that ants use their antennae to check each other. You would continue to spread nonsense about ant mimics which visionaly look like ants. It should give them protection by your flawed logic - but no one know protection against what.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Since predator/prey evolution can be viewed as something of a long-term escalation race, it's entirely possible that the wasp striping provided a much stronger survival advantage in the past. But since the predators are also evolving, they may be more discerning now. It may be that they have evolved to react more to the sound or shape than to the color, whereas the past predators may have reacted more to the coloration.

May, may, may... This is the last darwinian resort. Nobody can check it. Because "warning coloration" play no role and give no protection - it could be checked - it is presumed that there was once a time... Of course to hold such fantasies for science you have to be convinced about omnipotence of hypothesis of "natural selection".

And once again we see the goalposts being moved. Come on, can't you come up with anything better than that? It's the oldest trick in the book.

Creationist: Creationism is true because evolution has no way of explaining x.Biologist: Well, actually, here's one possible explanation of x...Creationist: Ha! You have no way of proving that's what really happened! My theory still wins!Biologist: ...

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

I don't have access to Martin's paper. However, from the abstract, it seems they didn't measure the same thing. The more recent paper compared predation on flies painted in black with predation on flies with striped color patterns. So clearly, the control allows to test the effect of the color pattern only.Whereas the older study says

Quote

dragonflies showed no differences between attacks on prey with wasp-like colours and patterns and those on the same-sized prey that were nonmimetic.

So it seems that preys were different (different species?). This couldn't test the effect of stripes alone. There can be confounding effects.

The 2003 paper clearly shows that a fly would benefit of a *new* striped color pattern regarding the risk of predation, while the older doesn't allow any clear conclusion.It is also possible that some mimmics had a fitness advantage in the past, but they no longer fool their predators.

I'm sorry. I can't take it any more. VMartin, this isn't a challenge to evolution by natural selection.

This is a micro example. Since evolution by natural selection is the force driving speciation, we can know for certain that these things evolved the way they did through natural selection. How is an academic matter with potentially no useful information flowing from the answer. Of course there could be something useful but maybe not. Anyway, raising your objection at all is a weird straw-grasping gesture that even makes the moonies at the airport avoid you.

Yeesh.

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

They even "THINK"? Really? Did't you make some naive antropomorphism to support your ridiculous concept of mimicry and it's protective value?

Your stupidity and ignorance are amazing. There are more than 2.000 guests species which lives in ant's nests. According your darwinian flawed logic all of them should be mimics. So have a look at the beetle Atemeles first. Ants are even feeding them... Or lomechusa strumosa or many others... Do you see any resemblance, any mimicry?

Because you have no basic idea about mimicry and so-called "zoomimese" and because you do not care about facts you do not know that in nests is dark and that ants use their antennae to check each other. You would continue to spread nonsense about ant mimics which visionaly look like ants. It should give them protection by your flawed logic - but no one know protection against what.

Marty, all you have to offer is endless bitching about imagined shortcomings of 'Darwinismus'.

What do you think explains these factors, if not natural selection?

No idea? None?

Too stupid to have an idea, or too embarrassed to say?

Do you sign on with Davison's "goddidit, then died" idea?

Produce something, Marty. Quit being a buffoon. Put up or shut up.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I suppse these pictures weren't done by scientists. Otherwise they would know that modern armchair research proved that wasps' "warning coloration" deter predators...

But who knows, there was once a time wasps have no predators due to their "waring stripes" hehe...

Marty, you're more incoherent than ever.

What's your explanation of such behaviors? Do you have any kind of point here at all? Or just trolling?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

No more photos, Marty. We're not interested. Answer the frigging questions, or get back to work.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I'm sorry. I can't take it any more. VMartin, this isn't a challenge to evolution by natural selection.

This is a micro example. Since evolution by natural selection is the force driving speciation, we can know for certain that these things evolved the way they did through natural selection. How is an academic matter with potentially no useful information flowing from the answer. Of course there could be something useful but maybe not. Anyway, raising your objection at all is a weird straw-grasping gesture that even makes the moonies at the airport avoid you.

Yeesh.

Uf. Another "expert". Micro example, would you believe to such an "argument"?

BWE, do you know something about mimicry or not? Then go away and have a talk at "bathroom wall" with poor Arden. You have written stupid gibberish yet like him. You are not at school to deceive small children how "natural selection" created "warning coloration" you know. But I am aftraid even a small child wouldn't be persuaded by your "airport natural selection" gibberish.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin